Removing organs for organ transplants Removing organs for organ transplants from a body after death is permitted

assuming that the statutory requirements are complied with. However, with technology constantly increasing in its abilities, the question of what can be done to preserve organs is an issue that is highly controversial. Organs are best preserved when left inside of a living body or beating heart cadaver. Consequently, this raises many issues when dealing with patients who are physically incapable of keeping themselves alive. In many cases, medical professionals try to keep a person "alive" for the sole purpose of preserving these organs. By doing this, future removal of these organs will be more effective in organ transplant patients. However, this is seen in many ways as violating the rights of the organ donor. Generally, if a patient is unable to give permission for medical treatment, they are only allowed to receive treatment if it is found that the treatment would be in their best interest. This raises the question of whether keeping a person alive to remove their organs is ethically correct. Another problem encountered in the topic of organ transplantation is the question of, "When is it permissible to remove an organ from the body?" In the article Education and Debate written by Robert Francis, the ethical debate concerning the elective ventilation of an unconscious patient is discussed and by many standards is found to be unlawful. Francis states, "There is a distinction between the rights in respect of a dead body and a living patient." According to the law, it is permitted to remove organs from a body after death assuming that the statutory requirements are complied with. But the ethical concern comes into question whenever a patient is unable to give consent to receive medical treatment. At what point can medical treatment be withheld from a patient without their consent? In the case of a patient who is unable to give permission for medical treatment, treatment can be given to the patient if it is in his or her best interests. This permission of medical treatment comes from the legal doctrine of necessity, which states that it is lawful to intervene in the affairs of another person without their consent, granted that the intervention is intended for that persons benefit. In many cases, however, treatment is unable to cure the patients condition, and consequently, according to judicial suggestions, "a doctor has a duty to discontinue the artificial prolongation of life where this ceases to have any therapeutic point".[1] According to this principle, elective ventilation of an unconscious dying patient is not justified because they are being medically treated, not by their consent or for their own benefit (as the principle states), but instead for the sole reason of preserving the organs for donation. Paragraph 22, of the 1983 Code of Practice, makes it clear that in regard to continuing medical practice on the patient, "[Treatment] must be for the patients benefit." By keeping the patient alive it is not the patient who is benefiting, but rather the person receiving the organ donation. However, medical procedures can be given to an unconscious dying patient only with valid consent. In a case where a child under the age of 16 is found unconscious and dying, valid consent may be given by the parents of the child to authorize medical treatment. But, once again, this treatment may not be granted to the child if it is found that it is not in his or her best interests. In regards to medical procedures being rendered lawful to an unconscious adult, authority cannot be granted by relatives or any other person, but instead is left up to the principle of whether or not it is in their best interest to receive further medical treatment.[1] Overall, there are many issues to consider taking into account in the debate of ethical values clashing with modern science. Where some say let the patient die due to the inability to cure or help them, others plead to keep them living either in desperate hopes of improvement, or in order to preserve their organs for future donation.

References 1.Francis, Robert. "An Ethical Debate: A Legal Comment." BMJ. 18 03 1995. 8 Mar 2008 2.Fine, Robert. "From Quinlan to Schiavo: Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues in Severe Brain Injury." Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (2005): 303-310. 3. Sullivan, Ronald. "FAILURE OF BRAIN IS LEGAL 'DEATH,' NEW YORK SAYS ." The New York Times. 19 Jun 1987. 4 Mar 2008 4. Carpenter, Meredith. "Cryonics: Cheating Death or Just Freezing It?" Hybrid Vigor. 8 Mar 2008 5. Howards, Lawrence. "Ethics of Organ Donation." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 20 06 1999. 8 Mar 2008 6. Chartrand, Sabra. "Legal Definition of Death Is Questioned in Florida Infant Case." New York Times. 29 03 1992. 8 Mar 2008 7. Appel, JM. Defining Death: When Physicians and Families Differ